EDF Health

FDA’s approach to systematic review of chemicals got off on the wrong foot

By Maricel Maffini, PhD, Consultant and Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: November 16, 2023

Scientist working on a digital tablet showing data on the chemical element Cadmium

What Happened?

Last month, FDA’s scientists published the toxicological reference value (TRV) for exposure to cadmium in the diet. This value is the amount of a chemical—in this case cadmium—a person can consume in their daily diet that would not be expected to cause adverse health effects and can be used for food safety decision-making. The TRV was based on a systematic review FDA scientists published last year. We will turn to the TRV itself in an upcoming blog but are focusing on the systematic review here.

In a May 2023 publication, experts in systematic reviews from the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) raised concerns about FDA’s “lack of compliance” from established procedures.

We discussed these concerns with FDA. They said:

  • “The systematic review and the TRV” publication “have both undergone external peer review by a third-party and experts in the field.” The agency expects to publish the reviews on its website, and
  • FDA “is working on developing a protocol for a systematic review of cardiovascular effects of cadmium exposure that will be published.”

Why It Matters

Systematic review is a method designed to collect and synthesize scientific evidence on specific questions to increase transparency and objectivity and provide conclusions that are more reliable and of higher confidence than traditional literature reviews. In particular, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have recommended the use of systematic reviews to establish values such as the TRV that may be used to inform regulatory decisions.

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) and others have developed specific methodologies to conduct systematic reviews. FDA’s authors said they followed NTP’s Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) handbook.

Unfortunately, FDA’s adherence to the methodology fell short on both transparency and objectivity grounds, undermining the credibility of its conclusions. Credibility is crucial because FDA’s authors stated that “this systematic review ultimately supports regulatory decisions and FDA initiatives, such as Closer to Zero, which identifies actions the agency will take to reduce exposures to contaminants like cadmium through foods.”

Read More »

Also posted in FDA, Public health / Tagged , , , , , | Authors: , / Leave a comment

Now’s the Time—How EPA Can Use TSCA to Turn Off the PFAS Tap

By Maria Doa, PhD, Senior Director, Chemicals Policy / Published: September 18, 2023

Faucet with the word PFAS flowing out of it

In the face of mounting evidence about the dangers posed by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), one thing is clear: EPA needs to take urgent action to turn off the tap of these “forever chemicals” that have long-term consequences for our health and the environment.

As we discussed in a previous blog, it is imperative that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) use the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to regulate PFAS chemicals comprehensively—both those newly entering the market and those that have been in circulation for decades.

Read More »

Also posted in Chemical exposure, Chemical regulation, Cumulative impact, Cumulative risk assessment, Drinking water, Emerging science, Health policy, PFAS, Public health, Regulation, Risk assessment, Risk evaluation, TSCA, TSCA reform, Vulnerable populations, Worker safety / Tagged , , | Authors: / Read 2 Responses

New Approach Methodologies Should Adhere to TSCA Standards

By Susanne Brander, PhD, Senior Contributing Scientist / Published: August 15, 2023

What’s New?

EPA recently asked its Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), comprised of experts in the fields of toxicology and environmental chemistry, to make recommendations on implementing new approach methods (NAMs) for testing the safety of new chemicals.

NAMs encompass a wide array of new evaluation strategies, including testing cell lines or invertebrates (rather than mammals); using computational approaches; and estimating potential harms of new chemicals by looking at existing toxicity data on similar substances.

Why It Matters

EPA announced in 2019 that it would be redirecting resources towards developing NAMs to replace those studies. The looming concern is the possibility that NAMs may miss effects that whole animal mammalian testing accounts for and generate false negatives — potentially allowing toxic chemicals to appear in consumer products or end up in our environment.

This could happen because relying only on NAMs or using data from one chemical to predict how a new one might behave opens the door to missing negative effects. NAMs could also cause evaluators to miss opportunities to use the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the nation’s primary chemical safety law, to limit toxic chemical exposures. Read More »

Also posted in Chemical regulation, Cumulative risk assessment, Emerging science, Emerging testing methods, Frontline communities, New approach methods (NAMs), Risk assessment, Risk evaluation, TSCA / Tagged , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

EPA Should Use U.S. Chemical Safety Law to Turn Off PFAS Tap

By Maria Doa, PhD, Senior Director, Chemicals Policy / Published: June 30, 2023

The word

PFAS is a group of synthetic chemicals used in industrial processes and consumer products, including water-repellent clothing, such as outdoor wear, and food packaging. Once these “forever chemicals” are produced and used, they often make their way into the environment and our bodies. Many pose serious threats due to their toxic effects (often at trace levels) and their ability to build up in people, animals and the environment. Studies show that they are in almost all of us.

To make matters worse, people are exposed to multiple PFAS, not individual PFAS in isolation. Yet under the nation’s primary chemical safety law, EPA evaluates the safety of PFAS chemicals one at a time and does not consider the combined risks from exposures to multiple PFAS. Combined exposures increase the risk of harmful effects, thus magnifying the risks and the need for action.

Current Situation: All Costs, No Benefits

PFAS move easily throughout the environment and are difficult to destroy. They have contaminated drinking water, food, farms, wildlife, and the environment more broadly. At the local, state and federal levels, the U.S. is spending millions of dollars to clean up PFAS contamination. Some states, such as Michigan and Maine, are trying to recoup the costs their residents have had to bear to clean-up PFAS contamination of their water and land. The federal government is also taking action to address the widespread PFAS contamination. The costs for cleaning up PFAS contamination are imposed on society by the domestic producers, importers and users of PFAS who profit from their production and use.

Yet, despite the well-documented risks and costs to society of these chemicals, companies still continue to produce, import, and use PFAS. It is time to ban all PFAS or—if there are truly essential uses for these chemicals—limit how they are produced, imported and used so that their impact on us and the environment is minimal.

Urgent Need: Revisit, Reassess, and Regulate All PFAS

While EPA has recently tightened up approvals for new PFAS entering the market, it has yet to take significant action on those that are already on the market, which includes the hundreds of PFAS the agency approved over the past few decades. It is clear these PFAS have not been produced responsibly as demonstrated by the environmental contamination associated with many of the PFAS manufacturing facilities. And yet, many of these PFAS are still on the market. They are being produced and released into the environment, are in products we use every day, and continue to contaminate us and our environment.

Many of EPA’s approvals were made 10 to 20 years ago, before we had a full picture of the pervasiveness and degree of PFAS contamination. The data on the extent of the environmental contamination of these persistent PFAS, their ability to move through the environment, and the significant difficulty in destroying them was not as robust as it is today. Furthermore, mounting evidence shows that even trace levels of PFAS can cause developmental issues in children, reduced fertility, hormonal disruptions, and certain types of cancer.

In addition, these approvals did not consider risks to vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women and children as currently required by the law. Many communities are exposed to multiple PFAS, particularly those who live, work and play near where PFAS are made and used.

Addressing the production, import and use of PFAS would limit further pollution of our water supplies, safeguard the health of our communities, and be consistent with other strong EPA actions to address PFAS, including its recent robust proposed drinking water standards.

Effective regulation of these harmful chemicals at their source would also accelerate efforts to seek out and adopt safer alternatives. Leaving chemicals with such well-documented harms on the market makes it more difficult for innovative, safer substitutes to enter it. Failing to address these risks in effect puts a thumb on the scale in support of older harmful technologies.

Our Take

EPA should re-evaluate each of the PFAS it has approved. During that re-evaluation, EPA should use the best available science and consider the full picture of PFAS exposure. Considering each PFAS in isolation rather than the multiple PFAS people, particularly those in vulnerable groups, are exposed to will underestimate their risk.

EPA should use the Toxic Substances Control Act to take action to ban these legacy PFAS, or restrict them if the uses are truly essential, rather than continuing to allow the production, import and use of these demonstrably harmful “forever chemicals.”

Go Deeper

Learn more about EDF’s concerns about PFAS and read our follow-up blog  on how EPA can use TSCA to turn off the PFAS tap.

EPA’s information on PFAS

Also posted in Chemical exposure, Chemical regulation, Contamination, Cumulative impact, Cumulative risk assessment, Emerging testing methods, Food, Food packaging, Health hazards, PFAS, Public health, Risk assessment, Risk evaluation, TSCA, Vulnerable populations / Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

FDA’s squishy definition of adverse health effects of substances in food

By Maricel Maffini, PhD, Consultant and Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: June 15, 2023

Maricel Maffini, consultant, and Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals

3 human figures showing stages of becoming ill. First figure is all white and standing up straight. Second figure is bent over and stomach area is red. Third figure is is all red, bent over, and appears to be vomiting.

What Happened

A recent peer-reviewed publication criticized FDA’s criteria for identifying adverse health effects associated with exposure to pathogens, chemicals, or allergens in foods. The authors gave two recent examples of the agency dismissing health concerns: a toxin created in spoiled fish that caused temporary, medically adverse health effects because they were short-term and reversible, and an additive where evidence from animal testing showed harm in only one sex. The authors concluded that the agency’s criteria are “inadequate because they are not science-based.”

Why It Matters

FDA is responsible for protecting food safety and the public’s health. In order to do that, it makes decisions whether a pathogen, chemical, or allergen causes an adverse health effect that must be avoided—so the agency’s definition of an adverse health effect is critically important. Unfortunately, FDA lacks a clear definition of the term, usually approaching it on a case-by-case basis in a manner that lacks transparency and scientific grounding.

Adverse Effects Dismissed by FDA

In 2020, the director of The Pew Charitable Trusts’ food safety project argued that FDA failed to “protect Americans from preventable illnesses” because it considered that the effects caused by the fish toxin were temporary or reversible. FDA described the toxin’s effects, which ranged from facial flushing and sweating, dizziness, nausea and headache to more severe cases of blurred vision, respiratory stress, and swelling of the tongue. The Pew director reasonably added that people may require hospitalization, medical treatment due to cardiac complications, and altered blood pressure–all of which are adverse health effects.

In a 2019 final rule approving the listing of leghemoglobin as a color additive, the Center for Food Safety objected that FDA dismissed statistically significant “changes in blood chemistry, blood clotting ability, and blood globulin values” as potential health effects. In its response to the objection, the agency argued that “statistical differences seen between control animals and treatment animals due to small changes in the value of the parameter are not likely to be of biological or toxicological significance.” FDA further stated that for the color additive to cause the blood changes to be “potentially adverse” it should:

  • Show a “clear dose-response,” described as a direct relationship between the dose given and the effect observed, in other words, the higher the dose, the higher the effect; and
  • Be observed in both sexes of the species in which the substance is tested.

This argument put forth by FDA’s food safety scientists would be summarily dismissed by their colleagues on the drug side because it ignores current scientific principles: dose responses can have different shapes and there are known sex differences in response to exposures from multiple chemicals.

Our Take

This is an ongoing issue. Other organizations have defined “adverse health effects.” For example, EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) defines adverse effect as “[a] biochemical change, functional impairment, or pathologic lesion that affects the performance of the whole organism, or reduces an organism’s ability to respond to an additional environmental challenge.”

FDA’s lack of a practical definition for adverse health effect and how the agency applies it in food safety assessments has likely contributed to inconsistencies in its decision making.

Next Steps

We will continue to press the agency for transparency about what health effects it considers important to prevent and protect the health of American families. FDA should publish clear, rational, science-based criteria for determining adverse effects and periodically review them as our knowledge base advances to better inform regulatory decisions.

Also posted in Adverse health effects, FDA, Health hazards, Health policy, Public health, Regulation / Tagged , , , | Authors: , / Comments are closed

Representatives Call For FDA Public Hearing on Phthalates

By Joanna Slaney and Maricel Maffini, PhD, Consultant / Published: June 6, 2023

By. Joanna Slaney, Senior Director, Federal Affairs, and Maricel Maffini, PhD, Consultant

U.S. Capitol dome framed by trees

Source: A. Paige Baker, ShutterSights.com©

What Happened?

On May 19, Reps. Katie Porter, Steve Cohen, Nanette Diaz Barragán, Earl Blumenauer, and Raúl Grijalva issued a letter [PDF, 300KB] to FDA Commissioner Robert Califf calling on FDA to “act expeditiously to protect the public from the health risks posed by phthalates in food and food packaging.”

They asked the FDA to hold a public hearing on ortho-phthalates (phthalates), chemicals associated with disruptions to the development of the male reproductive system and neurodevelopment, among other health effects.

Why It Matters

In 2021, Reps. Porter and Lieu led a letter with 12 colleagues urging FDA to take action on phthalates in food and cosmetics. That letter, in part, called on FDA to take action on a 2016 petition filed by EDF and allied environmental health organizations asking FDA to revoke its approval for all uses of phthalates in food packaging and processing equipment.

In May 2022, after the petitioners sued, FDA denied the petition. The petitioners formally objected to the decision and requested a public hearing pursuant to FDA’s regulations. The agency has not provided any timeline for acting on the objections.

Request for a Public Hearing

The Representatives stated in the letter submitted last month that  FDA’s decision denying the petition was flawed. “[W]e are deeply concerned about the denial, which was made without deciding whether the remaining approved uses of phthalates in food and food packaging are safe.” (Emphasis original)

They reminded Commissioner Califf of his recent statement that chemical safety is a “really, really important area for the future – for humankind, really – and where science is evolving rapidly,” urging FDA to hold a public hearing on two areas of concern:

  • The agency’s failure to evaluate the safety of phthalates as it was legally required to do before denying the 2016 petition. The letter stated, “failing to evaluate the safety of phthalates is an abdication of the FDA’s continuing obligation to oversee the safety of the food supply.”
  • FDA’s failure to address new toxicity information that raises significant questions about the safety of phthalates. Phthalates are associated with numerous health issues, including reproductive and developmental toxicity, endocrine disruption, immune toxicity, and epigenetic alterations. The letter stated, “the denial of the petition fails to acknowledge, let alone analyze, the dozens of peer-reviewed studies that underscore the toxicity of the phthalates that remain approved for food contact use.”

Next Steps

EDF and our allies will continue to press FDA to hold a public hearing on the safety of phthalates used in food packaging and processing equipment.

Go Deeper

EDF blogs on phthalates

Also posted in Congress, Developmental toxicity, Endocrine disruptors, FDA, Food, Food packaging, Phthalates, Public health, Public hearing, Regulation, Reproductive toxicity / Tagged , , , , , | Authors: , / Comments are closed